Omnivores suffer no adverse effects whatsoever from 2.86 RE vitamin A per gram of liver.

Therefore humans are not omnivores.]

Omnivores synthesize vitamin C.

Humans do not synthesize vitamin C.

Therefore humans are not omnivores.

Omnivorous mammals have a gastric pH of 3.5 or less with food.

Humans do not have a gastric pH of less than 3.5 or less with food.

Therefore humans are not omnivores.

Humans (adult) have a body length ~10 times smaller than the length of the small intestine.

Omnivorous mammals (adult) do not have a body length ~10 times smaller than the length of the small intestine.

Therefore humans are not omnivorous mammals.

Human incisors are flat and spade-like

Omnivore incisors are not flat and spade-like

Therefore humans are not omnivores.

If at some point you become able to do more than make baseless assertions, that is, if you ever become able to make a logical argument premised on empirical facts by which to conclude that humans are biologically adapted as omnivorous mammals, then be sure to let us know.

You just tried to bolster your argument by rattling off a list of characteristics of primarily carnivorous animals (such as canines or felines) not "omnivores" in the broad sense.

"Omnivore" isn't a binary term -- it's a spectrum, and a very broad one. Therefore being an "omnivore" in the sense that a canine is -- will not be the same as a bear, which, in turn, is not the same as a primate, or a human.

Your argument therefore just ate itself. (No pun intended.)

Humans evolved as omnivores. Fact.

Perhaps you might try making a case for how now might be a good time for us to move toward a plant-based diet, because we could probably eventually adapt, or evolve, to that, just as we evolved to an omnivorous diet.

Otherwise, any attempts to deny the obvious (humans biologically evolved as omnivores) will continue to result in a lot of pointing and laughing.

So you are unable to cite any research by which to defend meat-eating by humans... and you are unable to state any logical argument premised on empirical evidence by which to conclude that humans are biologically adapted as omnivorous mammals. Right?

Apparently, like Tielhard, you just wanted to demonstrate your ability to make baseless assertions. Right?

Mindis1, my old friend. Good to see you. I'm afraid I must agree with Teil on this one. We are omnivores. We are omnivores because we eat meat and plants. If you don't believe me, just stop by the nearest steak house or burger joint. It doesn't get any more empirical than that.

But I also have reseach to back me up:

"Since the evolutionary split between hominins and pongids approximately 7 million years ago, the available evidence shows that all species of hominins ate an omnivorous diet composed of minimally processed, wild-plant, and animal foods."

Loren Cordain (2007). "Implications of Plio-pleistocene diets for modern humans" Reference 87 in this Wiki article.

But anybody with half a brain knows our species has been eating meat as long as our species has existed. Your physiological arguments are silly. The most empirical way to determine if a particular species is omnivorous is to observe what they eat. Do you disagree?

Just for fun, google the phrase "humans are omnivores." It's a good read.

So you are unable to cite any research by which to defend meat-eating by humans... and you are unable to state any logical argument premised on empirical evidence by which to conclude that humans are biologically adapted as omnivorous mammals. Right?

Apparently, like Tielhard, you just wanted to demonstrate your ability to make baseless assertions. Right?

Mindis1, my old friend. Good to see you. I'm afraid I must agree with Teil on this one. We are omnivores. We are omnivores because we eat meat and plants. If you don't believe me, just stop by the nearest steak house or burger joint. It doesn't get any more empirical than that.

But I also have reseach to back me up:

"Since the evolutionary split between hominins and pongids approximately 7 million years ago, the available evidence shows that all species of hominins ate an omnivorous diet composed of minimally processed, wild-plant, and animal foods."

Loren Cordain (2007). "Implications of Plio-pleistocene diets for modern humans" Reference 87 in this Wiki article.

But anybody with half a brain knows our species has been eating meat as long as our species has existed. Your physiological arguments are silly. The most empirical way to determine if a particular species is omnivorous is to observe what they eat. Do you disagree?

Just for fun, google the phrase "humans are omnivores." It's a good read.

Cheers,

BeerLover

We're not adapted to eat nearly as much meat as we currently do in some places. In the U.S., some people might very well eat meat with all three daily meals.

However, to say were not adapted to meat eat, at all -- that we are not omnivores -- is willfully ignorant.

Mindis1, my old friend. Good to see you. I'm afraid I must agree with Teil on this one. We are omnivores. We are omnivores because we eat meat and plants. If you don't believe me, just stop by the nearest steak house or burger joint. It doesn't get any more empirical than that.

No, we are cannibals, because we eat pèople. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who eats people. It doesn't get any more empirical than that.

Mindis1, my old friend. Good to see you. I'm afraid I must agree with Teil on this one. We are omnivores. We are omnivores because we eat meat and plants. If you don't believe me, just stop by the nearest steak house or burger joint. It doesn't get any more empirical than that.

No, we are cannibals, because we eat pèople. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who eats people. It doesn't get any more empirical than that.

A: That's a red herring.

B: Humans evolved as ominvores. That's a fact.

C: There are good arguments for substantially curbing -- or even ending -- the mass production/consumption of meat, and switching to a moslty or completely plant-based diet, without resorting to denying obvious facts.

Across the Span of Human Cultures and Histories -- long PRIOR to the Development of Industrial Scale Agriculture and Animal Husbandry -- we Human Beings have been (and we CONTINUE to be) Opportunistic Feeders, i.e., we eat just about ANYTHING edible that we can find, gather, catch, hunt, trap, or grow ... We are "OMNI-Vores" ... That is a FACT ...

It is ALSO a Fact of Human Evolution, Human Biology, and Human Cultural History that our Ancestors did NOT evolve eating Tofu and taking Vitamin B-12 Caps ...

Omnivores suffer no adverse effects whatsoever from 2.86 RE vitamin A per gram of liver.

Therefore humans are not omnivores.]

Omnivores synthesize vitamin C.

Humans do not synthesize vitamin C.

Therefore humans are not omnivores.

Omnivorous mammals have a gastric pH of 3.5 or less with food.

Humans do not have a gastric pH of less than 3.5 or less with food.

Therefore humans are not omnivores.

Humans (adult) have a body length ~10 times smaller than the length of the small intestine.

Omnivorous mammals (adult) do not have a body length ~10 times smaller than the length of the small intestine.

Therefore humans are not omnivorous mammals.

Human incisors are flat and spade-like

Omnivore incisors are not flat and spade-like

Therefore humans are not omnivores.

If at some point you become able to do more than make baseless assertions, that is, if you ever become able to make a logical argument premised on empirical facts by which to conclude that humans are biologically adapted as omnivorous mammals, then be sure to let us know.

You just tried to bolster your argument by rattling off a list of characteristics of primarily carnivorous animals (such as canines or felines) not "omnivores" in the broad sense.

"Omnivore" isn't a binary term -- it's a spectrum, and a very broad one. Therefore being an "omnivore" in the sense that a canine is -- will not be the same as a bear, which, in turn, is not the same as a primate, or a human.

Your argument therefore just ate itself. (No pun intended.)

Humans evolved as omnivores. Fact.

Perhaps you might try making a case for how now might be a good time for us to move toward a plant-based diet, because we could probably eventually adapt, or evolve, to that, just as we evolved to an omnivorous diet.

Otherwise, any attempts to deny the obvious (humans biologically evolved as omnivores) will continue to result in a lot of pointing and laughing.

I wonder how many localities there are in the world where, if we could undo all the paving over, importations, and other human disruptions, the local flora would be sufficient to support a human vegetarian diet.

I wonder how many localities there are in the world where, if we could undo all the paving over, importations, and other human disruptions, the local flora would be sufficient to support a human vegetarian diet.

I'm very glad to see that Mindis has posted in this discussion, because he always presents the hard facts about human cultural dietary patterns. The facts don't always jibe with what most people have been brought up to believe about human eating habits, which is probably why some posters ridicule and disparage what he's shown.

However....I'd like to get back to Christine's original OP, which was to talk about how the abuses of domestic farm animals caused one frightened cow to run away.

Only this week, there have been reports of terrible cruelty in a Wyoming pig farm, in which pigs and piglets were thrown about and kicked, and female pigs were confined to those horrible so-called 'gestation' crates:

(The FACTS of what Human Beings actually do EAT -- across Cultures and Time -- are what they are ...

But, my GOODNESS ... !!! Isn't it a HUGE Bit of Good Fortune that The Pill-Industry Guys began making and selling Vitamin B-12 Caps a while back, else The Human Species would have died out by now, eh ... ???)

The Question of Humane and WISE Agricultural Practices is a DIFFERENT Matter, yes ... ??? Mixing them up ISN'T helpful ...